On (10/06/13 10:03), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 06:24:48PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> 1. I like idea of divided subpackages. If someone wants only ldap backend, he
> needn't install samba-libs (and its dependencies)
>
> 2. There isn't any rpmlint warnings.
>
> I tested yum upgrade upgrade with installed sssd and freeipa-client.
> New packages were installed for dependencies:
> sssd-ad sssd-common sssd-ipa sssd-krb5 sssd-krb5-common sssd-ldap
> Everything worked as expected.
>
> Then I decided to remove sssd-ad:
> yum remove sssd-ad
> and packeges "freeipa-client, sssd" were also removed.
> I was little bit confused, because I didn't want to remove sssd
> and sssd replied to getent command after packages "freeipa-client, sssd"
were
> removed.
That's because freeipa-client currently requires sssd, we might want open a
ticket to make them require just sssd-ipa.
The most confusing thing was for me that sssd was removed.
Yes, we should file a ticket to freeipa-client after releasing sssd.
>
> I think, that other users may be also confused with this situation.
> Then I looked to the patch and I found out, that:
> --sssd is only "meta package",which require all backedns subpackages
> --sssd doesn't contain any useful files
> --everything important is in package sssd-common.
>
>
> Maybe we should update package description of sssd and sssd-common.
> I hope that system administrators relies on output of "yum info"
> and there isn't it very well explained.
>
Thanks, I updated the summary of both sssd and sssd-common. Hopefully it
would be clearer now.
Thank you.
> Summary:
> Everything works well, but I was little bit confused.
>
> Any other opinions?
>
> One nitpick inline
>
>
I think, that patches are OK.
Does anybody have another comments or objections?
LS